Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Greener, I agree with you about the locations of exposition, development and recapitulation. If you compare the exposition and the recapitulation carefully, you will find out what causes the exposition to have more measures.

The Clementi Sonatina #4 is another example where the exposition is longer than the recapitulation: 30 measures vs. 24 measures.

I am finding listening to this piece several times with the score to be very important because the score is busy enough that just looking at it (without listening) I don't see the similarity of patterns, except for very obvious ones; and I don't audiate the whole thing at a high enough complexity to pick up these less obvious similarities either. Also it is helping me to hear sections of "this sounds like a musical idea" "this sounds like another musical idea" "this sounds like something I've heard before." Not that these patterns couldn't be picked up just from reading the score, with or without a high level of audiation; it's just that I'm not picking them up that way.

Thanks - I'll definitely be checking out what you guys are up to, and if I can think of anything to contribute or ask, I will.

However any thoughts I might have are going to be pretty basic. For example, right now I'm thinking most of bar 1 I can understand: he's spinning out a tonic triad. But where's he conjuring the A and D from? Why did it have to be those two notes and not two others?

But where's he conjuring the A and D from? Why did it have to be those two notes and not two others?

Interesting question! But slightly wide of the mark.

The first two notes are not as important as you might think! The essential feature here is the first and third beat of each bar, starting with the E in M1, and spinning out the theme E-D-C-F-E-D-? The start E-D-C settles on the tonic note and by starting again on F he's making you expect it to land on tonic again in M4 but it doesn't!

M4 starts with D and the second beat leads A-B- again expecting C but he lands on it off the beat and, delighted with himself, teases you with those last three notes all the way to the end of M6 still not hitting the C on the beat.

He then repeats the whole thing, slightly disguised this time but in in M10 he DOES hit C on the beat and, wild with excitement, dances on the leading note, B, at the start of M11, 12 and 13 and wraps it up in M13, 14 and 15 by repeating the main theme again but this time starting on C and inverting it C-D-E-B-C-D-E.

I don't know where Haydn stands in the history of the development of The Sonata.

How did I miss this? Thank goodness for the link to Brendel!

Haydn is pretty much the father of the symphony and, with Mozart, he crafted the sonata principle and made it what it was and it pervaded everything from sonatas and symphonies to overtures. Until along came that elemental force of nature, Beethoven, who took the idea, stood it on its head and worked it like Michelangelo worked marble carving masterpiece after glorious masterpiece.

But where's he conjuring the A and D from? Why did it have to be those two notes and not two others?

Interesting question! But slightly wide of the mark.

The first two notes are not as important as you might think! The essential feature here is the first and third beat of each bar, starting with the E in M1, and spinning out the theme E-D-C-F-E-D-? The start E-D-C settles on the tonic note and by starting again on F he's making you expect it to land on tonic again in M4 but it doesn't!

M4 starts with D and the second beat leads A-B- again expecting C but he lands on it off the beat and, delighted with himself, teases you with those last three notes all the way to the end of M6 still not hitting the C on the beat.

He then repeats the whole thing, slightly disguised this time but in in M10 he DOES hit C on the beat and, wild with excitement, dances on the leading note, B, at the start of M11, 12 and 13 and wraps it up in M13, 14 and 15 by repeating the main theme again but this time starting on C and inverting it C-D-E-B-C-D-E.

M13 presages something anew!

Cheers, Richard - there's a lot to think about there! I still can't help hearing those downward skips: A-D G-C E-F D-E as one of the main features though, since they're kind of musically exciting events - specifically as PAIRS, echoed rhythmically in the bass. And also, isn't there a pattern to them harmonically?The theme you mention I don't really hear at all!

I guess it's that you are able to look at the big picture, the structure of the piece, whereas I can only really take in the immediate.

I see/hear a similarity to what I had previously called "something quite new starting at M37" and an already introduced theme/pattern from M10-M14. The melody in fact at M14 is nearly identical to the melody at M41, but one note lower. I think it may be possible to draw parallels between all the measures from M10-M14 with the measures from M37-41. But, then again, I could be way off.

This section though, starting at M37 sounds like it is more relaxed presentation of a previous theme, and I think it is coming from M10-M14.

What makes you think that? What notes, intervals, or rhythmic figures do you see in common?

Notes: No Intervals: Melody intervals in M14=M41 Rhytmic figures: The bass is same rhythmic figures (M11-13 vs M37-M41) but not the same intervals at all.

I was trying to find where this "something new" could be coming from with already presented themes, but think now that it is just "something new." Like, a bridge passage or calming before a climax at M42.

As we're agreed on the keys in the exposition I may as well get this in as I have already started off this movement:

Exposition:

First Group (Tonic, C major)M1-6 Theme 1, first endingM7-14 Theme 1, second endingM15-19 Transition theme that appears to announce new parts throughout the movement. This time it concludes with M19 turning the M18 figure upside down to announce the arrival of

Second Group (Dominant, G major)M20-29 Theme 1, ending an a lovely arpeggio on D7 and back toM30-33 Theme 1, abbreviatedM34-36 Transition theme returns, this time to announceM37-41 Theme 2, strong on contrast, short on time, leading toM42-53 Coda for the exposition.

Notes.Haydn often used continuations and extensions to the opening theme for his second subject rather than a contrasting theme. Here, he simply changes the presentation and the endings. He gets a nice, if short, contrasting theme before the coda but does little with it in the development. He works the first theme more than usual in this sonata but has different endings throughout.

The coda makes use of sextuplets. These are very common in Haydn. We already experienced the outbreak of triplets in the sonata Hob. XVI/8 that we analysed after the first Clementi sonatina.

This does not fit well easily or obviously into expected sonata form. It was written in 1794-5 on one of his London tours (it is frequently referred to as the "English" sonata). This is well after Mozart's death so he and Mozart had both established what we now know as sonata form by this time but we can now understand that it's much more flexible than may have been believed.

The recapitulation and the exposition are not identical twins, as has already been noted. The comparison, when we finish, is quite intriguing.

The keys in the development are not what you might expect from a piece in C major.

But, with these notes on my score now and listening again, everything makes perfect sense the way you describe it here.

Look forward to moving into development now. Right off the bat I'm seeing some sharps and flats and F is soon natural. Makes me think we might be moving into something minor, but no breaking news just yet.

While you're busy with the development section, Jeff, here's some thoughts for those not actively involved in analysis but following nonetheless.

Picking up on my earlier post about the opening theme here descending to tonic and Bob's query about why Haydn chose A and D to follow, it doesn't really matter what ELSE he chose, as long as the beat started on D. In the second run through, M7-10, he decorates a G for the first two notes but a simple experiment at the piano will show that his options are wide. Although a drop of a third and fourth onto the principal notes doesn't work too well, drops of a second, fifth and seventh are better or simply maintaining a trill on C does a fine job as long as the E-D-C, F-E-D-C notes are hit on the beat.

Why is this?

It's a feature of our music system and why the key and time signature are equally important at the start of a piece. In a post some months ago someone queried why Chopin's Nocturne in E flat wasn't written in 3/4 time since it was basically a waltz. But it isn't. It's in 12/8 for a reason.

Hidden beneath each bar of common time are unwritten accents on the four beats, strong, weak, medium, weak. All the other notes are unaccented, the second note of quaver pairs, the two trailing notes in a triplet and the three trailing notes in semiquavers. Note that weak accents are still stronger than unaccented notes. This is particularly important in rock that relies on the back beat and effectively uses medium-strong-weak-strong as it's underlying pattern. So there are always four dynamic levels in a bar of common time, even if there aren't that many notes in the bar.

If you take a book of carols or folk songs and play just the first note of each bar (and hold it for the appropriate duration) in 3/4 time and the first and third in 4/4 time you will get the basic musical sense of the piece. The other notes are essentially padding and could be almost anything diatonic and still fit without changing the essence of the music.

This will be important in our next sonata, which features, in common with many pieces and the practise of the day, variation form.

It may also help in some sonatas (not this one) where the composer has disguised in the development section the themes from the exposition. If you concentrate on the beat notes of the principal themes it's easier to pick up the themes elsewhere in different guises.

I learnt this when I was given a recorder at eight years old when music was compulsory in schools. I am aghast that this isn't pointed out more in current tutors and online theory courses.

So, when you learn your next piece of Bach, for example, pay attention to the beat notes and add the appropriate emphasis to them instead of just playing sixteen semiquavers of equal weight.

Richard, thank you for that explanation. That is certainly something for me to pay attention to in the pieces I am learning currently: to consciously pay attention to the beat stresses. What about appoggiaturas, though?

Great stuff - thanks for taking the trouble to explain all that so clearly, Richard.

So I'm curious, when you're analysing the piece do you feel you're somehow reconstructing how Haydn would have made it? He would have started with the very simple theme that you've identified and everything else that happens is like the flesh he hangs on that skeletal frame (and it's later variants etc.)?

Cheers

(Incidentally there are times when it's hard for me to post, but I'll always show up eventually!)

By examining each piece and breaking it down into it's component parts we can get a better understanding of the musical language of that composer and the musical language of the day.

I don't think we can see the composers thought processes that went into the creation necessarily but by seeing what he ends up with and how the parts relate to each other we can better understand the result.

There's no question, as far as I'm concerned, that I understand the theory and details of John Lennon's work better than he ever did but I could never come up with those ideas myself. To him, it just works, to me there's a science to why and how it works.

When we analyse a piece we get to know it better and understand it better. This has two practical applications. It makes it easier to learn and remember and it makes it easier to interpret. It also increases our listening pleasure and musical appreciation.

Mozart claims he saw all his compositions in a coup d'oeil so there would be no construction process after that. Beethoven spent years over his compositions wringing every last drop from the potential of each and every figure, just look at what he did with the birdcall, da-da-da-dah, in his fifth symphony.

There may be some insight as to how to construct a piece out of one or two themes and figures but that's not the same as the original inspiration or creation.

Yes, I was wrapped up in that whole rock thing as a kid. In that world pretty much just a guitar and some attitude generates all the musical content I think, and probably few would have known what that back beat you mentioned earlier actual was, even if they were playing it, aside from maybe Chuck Berry who mentioned it in his song.

Haydn had his keyboard and own kind of playful attitude, but he also had Fux and Part 2 of CPE Bach's Essay to bolster him, and of course some different types of aims. I read an interesting quote recently where he talks about his working method, but looking around, couldn't find it again. As I remember it however, I think he was saying he'd be improvising at the keyboard, and the sense of grasping something whole would come over him, and he was criticising the younger generation of musicians for failing to find this unifying force in their work.

Maybe I'll have another look for the actual quote, but don't want to sidetrack too much from the work being done here.

To expand on that, I could hear where theme 1 starts again throughout, but then every time it would go dancing off into ornaments and various different figures, and I couldn't tell if they were all different motifs, or if not, then how were they similar to something that had come previously, or whether the material constituted an extension of one theme, or an entirely new theme.

It's somewhat disconcerting to discover that this entire elaborate movement is built on the mundane sequence F E D C. Or maybe it should be inspiring, that on such an apparently unpromising base Haydn erects such a joyful and fanciful structure.